mtgr18977

Thanks =D

Hi, tahnks for testing :)

> Am I using this wrong?

Kinda. It's not a grammar corrector. The editor won't correct grammar mistakes or any "dictionarized" mistakes. It will only highklights hints for a better redability, like complex words, complex and long phrases, jargons and things like that. I think for this we have plenty of alterantives (better ones). Even the browser itself.

It works more like Hemingway App (https://hemingwayapp.com/).

I know how they work, and I think it's a really good job. But in the end, they still have to perform a gramatical check (like Prolog sentences) to be sure the text should be sent.

As I say, I know i pushed the limits, that's on me.

The thing is: there is no LAM in rabbit r1.

Or, you can nsay that an automation is a LAM (it's not).

With the definition of the Silvio Savarese’s article (from the podcast you indicate):

> To be clear, an LAMs job isn’t just turning a request into a series of steps, but understanding the logic that connects and surrounds them. That means understanding why one step must occur before or after another, and knowing when it’s time to change the plan to accommodate changes in circumstances. It’s a capability we demonstrate all the time in everyday life. For instance, when we don’t have enough eggs to make an omelet, we know the first step has nothing to do with cooking, but with heading to the nearest grocery store. It’s time we built technology that can do the same.

**

The definition provided by Silvio Savarese highlights the ability of a LAM to not only transform a request into a series of steps but also to understand the underlying logic that connects and surrounds these steps. This includes the ability to adjust the plan as circumstances change.

Based on this definition, claiming that rabbit r1 is a LAM-oriented assistant seems to be inaccurate. If it does not demonstrate the ability to understand and adapt to contextual changes in a logical and effective manner, it cannot be classified as a genuine LAM.

For a true LAM, it is crucial that the technology not only follows a predefined sequence of steps but also understands the logic and purpose behind each step, adjusting as necessary to achieve the desired goal. If rabbit r1 does not meet these criteria, its classification as a LAM indeed needs to be reviewed.

And, with that in mind I can assure you that rabbit r1 it's not a LAM oriented assistant as they claim.

The difference is how Alexa was advertised vs. how the rabbit r1 was advertised.

You need to see the videos with more attention ...

Or, at least, think about the misleading with the rabbit r1 by readning a little more about it.

Like this: https://nitter.poast.org/JD_2020/status/1794057162819260461#...

EDIT: I think a end-user doens't need to read the documentation to understand how the "magic" happens, this user just want the buy something that works as advertised.

tbf, I did this comparison with Prolog thinking more about the generated text bt LLM models than the tech behind it. My fault. But, I still think that rabbit r1 it's a SCAM in the sense that is misleading the users.

> I think the people calling it a scam are the same group that just complains about anything. The author drawing an equivalence between prolog and LLMs is a lot of evidence in favor of this sort of bullshit, I just have a really low tolerance for this kind of argument and person.

Thanks! I`m not a huge fan of people like you too.

In fact, when I compared it to Prolog, it was exactly with the view that, back in 2011, it was already possible to define a sentence/text as grammatical or ungrammatical with just a few lines of code. What LLM models like ChatGPT do is generate text based on corpora distributed across the web, grouped, tokenized and trained with a general purpose, but, in the end, they still need the same rules as Prolog to determine whether or not they can regurgitate the text to the user.

The problem is that most people can't see that rabbit r1 is a deceptive product, at least. chatGPT (and Gemini, Claude and many others) doesn't do this (it doesn't trick its users into thinking that the product does one thing, but it actually does another).

Maybe you should watch their announcement video again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22wlLy7hKP4

Or the interview of the CEO, Jesse Lyu aboutn the LAM: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-MNgciL5hw

If you're still sure that the LAM is present in their product, that's fine, but my view (and I understand how plugins, LLM, AI and other related things work) ist thre are no LAM in the rabbit r1.